Sheriff’s supporters misinterpret DOJ’s actions

Published: Friday, November 30, 2012 at 03:36 PM.

On Nov. 25, the Times-News published another in a series of letters from readers who sympathize with Sheriff Terry Johnson in his struggles with the U.S. Department of Justice.

For the writers, the fact that the sheriff says he is innocent of profiling means that he should be left alone. However, as any watcher of television knows, some such claims of innocence, in the end, fail to stand up. The law is complex, prohibiting some practices that at first might seem innocuous. The sheriff has admitted underreporting vehicle stops, blaming his computer.

The writers say the DOJ has no evidence. Yet the DOJ letter states that it “interviewed over 125 individuals, including county residents and current and former ACSO employees.” The letter offers damning quotes, presumably from these witnesses.

Much is made of the fact that the DOJ withdrew its first lawsuit, and is now threatening another suit. These lawsuits have nothing in common. The first was only about whether the DOJ would be allowed to interview deputies. The next lawsuit will be about discriminatory policing against Latinos.

Finally, we have the complaining about the DOJ’s trying its case in the press, political motivations, and not revealing the names of the witnesses or details of their testimony at this stage. These have no bearing on the trial merits of the case.

On Nov. 25, the Times-News published another in a series of letters from readers who sympathize with Sheriff Terry Johnson in his struggles with the U.S. Department of Justice.

For the writers, the fact that the sheriff says he is innocent of profiling means that he should be left alone. However, as any watcher of television knows, some such claims of innocence, in the end, fail to stand up. The law is complex, prohibiting some practices that at first might seem innocuous. The sheriff has admitted underreporting vehicle stops, blaming his computer.

The writers say the DOJ has no evidence. Yet the DOJ letter states that it “interviewed over 125 individuals, including county residents and current and former ACSO employees.” The letter offers damning quotes, presumably from these witnesses.

Much is made of the fact that the DOJ withdrew its first lawsuit, and is now threatening another suit. These lawsuits have nothing in common. The first was only about whether the DOJ would be allowed to interview deputies. The next lawsuit will be about discriminatory policing against Latinos.

Finally, we have the complaining about the DOJ’s trying its case in the press, political motivations, and not revealing the names of the witnesses or details of their testimony at this stage. These have no bearing on the trial merits of the case.